One could use the same reasoning to insist that Phelps should henceforth be allowed to compete in the women's freestyle but in reality it would be a denial of the rights of persons currently entitled to enter the event.

I think this analogy is flawed in that Phelp's participation would result in a disadvantage to the rest of the field, therefore denying their right to a fair competition. In the case of affording gays/lesbians the right to civil marriage, there is no diminution of the rights of anybody else in the process -- they would simply be brought to the same level of rights that heterosexual people have been enjoying all along ...

Quote:

Andrew whatever is name was... the reporter.

Heh. Andrew Sullivan is a blogger that sometimes goes a bit link-crazy. His nesting of links in this case had me confused as to whom you might be referring. Thanks for the clarification =)

Quote:

With one of these ones it would only be recognised by a local minority and wouldn't have universal recognition.

Would that not be likewise with your civil unions in states here that don't recognize them? Seems to me there would probably have to be a critical mass of governments approving civil unions/marriages for them to be accepted universally.

At any rate, I think the goal of advocates here is to have such unions/marriages recognized within all of the United States first before worrying about recognition abroad. Baby steps ...

In the case of affording gays/lesbians the right to civil marriage, there is no diminution of the rights of anybody else in the process

I didn't see that reasoning in the judgment and if I had I wouldn't have agreed with it. For the many people who believe that marriage has minimum requirements and religious significance there would be a diminution of their rights. Only if everyone votes to give those rights up should there be any change in the law.

Quote:

Would that not be likewise with your civil unions in states here that don't recognize them?

Correct. They wouldn't be recognised as marriage because that's not what they are. They're not recognised as marriage in England either but civil partners still have all the same rights as married persons do.

For the many people who believe that marriage has minimum requirements and religious significance there would be a diminution of their rights.

See, this is the argument I've never been able to wrap my head around: How does granting a minority group the right to get married and enjoy legal and civil benefits as a result effect the rights *at all* of the majority group who have had that right and those benefits all along, and continue to do so? I mean, it's not like suddenly heterosexual couples could not get married, or that the civil and legal benefits afforded to them by being married would be diminished in any way.

I understand some would see this as "cheapening" marriage -- but that's a matter of ego and attitude, not of law, since the law regarding heterosexuals would have changed not one iota ...

As for religious significance, I believe the Iowa court specifically stated that religious considerations were not germane, since the subject is that of a civil, secular institution and that they are constitutionally obligated to discard religious doctrine as a relevant factor ...

I went to post this, but of course it's already here. Way to go Iowa! Iowa is more progressive than people, even Iowans, give it credit for. Having said that, there are a lot of people in my tiny hometown shaking their heads right now... Can I say it again?: Way to go Ioway!!

So I guess now that polygamous marriages contracted in traditionalist Islamic countries ought to be rescinded because they'd not be recognized in British law? And here I thought the sun had set on the British Empire. Live and learn!

Because it has implications for Iowans travelling abroad. When most of us get married it's recognised all over the world. With one of these ones it would only be recognised by a local minority and wouldn't have universal acceptance.

And this would prevent Iowan same-sex married couples from doing what abroad? Being invited to dinner at Casa Keymaker? Getting a ride in a taxi? Being admitted to an art exhibit?

Oooooooooooo... The Minister of Universal Acceptance has decreed fair warning!

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.